On Jul 1, 5:48=A0pm, Erland Sommarskog <esq...@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> wrote:
> Marc Baker (mba...@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
) writes:
> > The tables in question both have a clustered and non-clustered index
> > (unique identifier only), and these are the DBCC SHOWCONTIG statistics
> > for one of those tables.
>
> > TABLE level scan performed.
> > - Pages Scanned................................: 234847
> > - Extents Scanned..............................: 29518
> > - Extent Switches..............................: 29517
> > - Avg. Pages per Extent........................: 8.0
> > - Scan Density [Best Count:Actual Count].......: 99.45% [29356:29518]
> > - Logical Scan Fragmentation ..................: 0.00%
> > - Extent Scan Fragmentation ...................: 2.87%
> > - Avg. Bytes Free per Page.....................: 493.5
> > - Avg. Page Density (full).....................: 93.90%
> > DBCC execution completed. If DBCC printed error messages, contact your
> > system administrator.
>
> > From what I am reading, this does not seem to be bad.
>
> Yes, there is no problem with fragmentation here. But I notice that the
> table is quite big. 1.9 GB (234847*8192), so if there are only 3.5
million=
> rows, the rows are fairly wide, around 550 bytes in average.
>
> Still several minutes to do a SELECT COUNT(*) seems a bit excessive.
> How much memory do you have in the machine?
>
> Does the other databases that you don't think are slow have similar
> size and schema?
>
> --
> Erland Sommarskog, SQL Server MVP, esq...@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
>
> Books Online for SQL Server 2005
athttp://www.microsoft.com/technet/prodte=
chnol/sql/2005/downloads/books...
> Books Online for SQL Server 2000
athttp://www.microsoft.com/sql/prodinfo/p=
reviousversions/books.mspx
There is 3GB of memory. Dynamically assigned by SQL. The other db's
do have similar size, and the exact same schema.
|
